Singlespeed & Fixed Gear"I still feel that variable gears are only for people over forty-five.
Isn't it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailer? We are getting soft...As for me, give me a fixed gear!"-- Henri Desgrange (31 January 1865 - 16 August 1940)

if you have a road double on the front, the inner chainring should probably line up with the rear cog of your new wheel, pretty close. if not, get a new bottom bracket with different spindle length. get some shorter chainring bolts and take off the outer chainring, secure a new chainring to the inner, or just use the old chainring. note, you probably won't be able to put a large (e.g. 49 tooth) chainring on the front without it scraping against your frame. take a few links out to shorten your chain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitchnodland

ok, i went on this weekend warrior type thing, and about %25 of the people had fixies.
they really got me liking them.

I have a old frame that should work, and the bike shop says they can sell me the rear wheel for a fixed bike, for $100.

I am trying to keep this as cheap as i can (under 150). I know absolutely nothing about converting bikes to fixed, let alone anything about bike wheels themselves.

i too am a noob to this single speed / fixed gear addiction. i have a 97 rocky mtn hammer race frame and i've upgraded the shifter / lever combo to shimano XT. i'm thinking of using one sprocket and keeping the front triple crank to have a bit of flexibility. is this done at all? can sheldon brown help me out?

as well, i'm thinking of stripping down the whole bike and getting the frame sandblasted and i'm going to repaint it. is this the long way to go? should i just throw a coat of primer on it and paint overtop?

i too am a noob to this single speed / fixed gear addiction. i have a 97 rocky mtn hammer race frame and i've upgraded the shifter / lever combo to shimano XT. i'm thinking of using one sprocket and keeping the front triple crank to have a bit of flexibility. is this done at all? can sheldon brown help me out?

as well, i'm thinking of stripping down the whole bike and getting the frame sandblasted and i'm going to repaint it. is this the long way to go? should i just throw a coat of primer on it and paint overtop?

you'd have to keep the derailer on for chain tension, and since it could allow the chain to slack a lot when you hit bumps, you will probably throw your chain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by highflyr

i too am a noob to this single speed / fixed gear addiction. i have a 97 rocky mtn hammer race frame and i've upgraded the shifter / lever combo to shimano XT. i'm thinking of using one sprocket and keeping the front triple crank to have a bit of flexibility. is this done at all? can sheldon brown help me out?

as well, i'm thinking of stripping down the whole bike and getting the frame sandblasted and i'm going to repaint it. is this the long way to go? should i just throw a coat of primer on it and paint overtop?

i'm thinking of using one sprocket and keeping the front triple crank to have a bit of flexibility. is this done at all? can sheldon brown help me out?

OK, I'm getting so sick of this question! I know they say there are no stupid questions, but I honestly think this is the exception. First of all, you CAN run a rear derailer without the front, but not a front without the rear, because the rear is responsible for chain tension. SO with that in mind WHY oh WHY do so many people want to do it? If you only want one derailer, why would you want to run 3 in the front instead of 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 in the back? Simplicity is always cited, but rear only is clearly simpler than a front only with the rear left on for chain tension. I don't get it? why do people seem to think the front derailer is perferable to the rear? WHY oh WHY?!!!! Someone please tell me!!

OK, I'm getting so sick of this question! I know they say there are no stupid questions, but I honestly think this is the exception. First of all, you CAN run a rear derailer without the front, but not a front without the rear, because the rear is responsible for chain tension. SO with that in mind WHY oh WHY do so many people want to do it? If you only want one derailer, why would you want to run 3 in the front instead of 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 in the back? Simplicity is always cited, but rear only is clearly simpler than a front only with the rear left on for chain tension. I don't get it? why do people seem to think the front derailer is perferable to the rear? WHY oh WHY?!!!! Someone please tell me!!

ok i feel better now

In addition, rear derailers always work BETTER than front ones.

However, I did this on my Raleigh International because there's no simple way to put more than one sprocket on its Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub.

OK, I'm getting so sick of this question! I know they say there are no stupid questions, but I honestly think this is the exception. First of all, you CAN run a rear derailer without the front, but not a front without the rear, because the rear is responsible for chain tension. SO with that in mind WHY oh WHY do so many people want to do it? If you only want one derailer, why would you want to run 3 in the front instead of 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 in the back? Simplicity is always cited, but rear only is clearly simpler than a front only with the rear left on for chain tension. I don't get it? why do people seem to think the front derailer is perferable to the rear? WHY oh WHY?!!!! Someone please tell me!!

ok i feel better now

ya know mattface... that idea just didn't occur to me... but point well taken. thanx!